Post your comment

Reader comments

‘Lord’ Carey is an embarrassment to normal Christians. Along with ‘Christian’ Concern, the ‘Christian’ Intsitute and ‘Christian’ Voice, he makes a mockery of what the Church represents. Normal people in the pews are not bigots and just because people like Carey shout the loudest doesn’t mean we’re all like him.

I took a look at the Mail Online comments section, and there appears to be a campaign of misinformation that the proposals are to force churches to conduct same sex weddings against their wishes. This meme has presumably been created to whip up indignation and opposition in the shires.

As for bigotry and religion becoming equated, it’s really up to those in the religious bodies that do stand for equality to shout more loudly than those that really are religious bigots.

Yes, lots of this misinformation is spread by ‘christians’ like the Christian Institue and the like. It’s similar to the false ‘fact’ that Christians aren’t allowed to wear crosses at work which many newspapers have been repeating.

But see how many people swallow it up as fact and repeat it to their friends. That’s why it’s important to make sure the truth gets out and to counter this campaign of lies at every step.

“He also has the gall to claim that he is “totally for equality” while in the same breath saying that same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage”

Yes, and he doesn’t seem to see how hypocritical and downright nasty that view is. That suggests to me that his bigotry – for that’s what it is – lies far deeper than ‘what the bible says’. He gives every impression of thinking that LGBT are inferior and unworthy of equal rights.

He’s a bigot, no doubt about it. The truth might hurt but it’s still the truth.

The biggest piece of ‘newspeak’ that the so called ‘spokepeople’ like to emphasise is that they speak for all christians. I personally know a lot of christians and not one of them believe that gay people shouldn’t have the right to get married.

So, Rowan Williams, when you’re speaking on behalf of christians, be very careful indeed as to who you’re referring to… ’cause is patently not the majority of chistians who have a rather more enlightened view of the real world and the part that LBGT people play in it!

thats a great piece of writing, perfectly summing up the absolute, hysterical irony of those who are now clutching their pearls at someone of prominence calling it like it is…Im sick and absolutely tired of this hypocrisy…more strong words please…its just a shame Clegg didnt go aghead with this ‘proposed’ speech

OK. So they not only have prejudices against others inspired and rationalised by unprovable supernatural beliefs, but feel that these beliefs justify them in trying to deny equality before the law to these same others – but they are not bigots.
So what is a bigot? Answers on a postcard, please.

The way the media has reported this is untruthful at best and downright lies at worst. I thought he’d called them bigots in some speech after three BBC channels reported it that way on various Breakfast programmes. Then I learn that it might have been in a speech (written by others) but was removed.
So yet another example of perceived offence at something that hasn’t actually happened!!
Still… the word bigot in the context of those opposing Equality is particularly accurate :-)

Why would Christians feel offended by the word bigot if it isn’t directed at Christians? The word bigot is being directed at homophobes, and only homophobes even those disguised as Christians will feel “offended”. Most racists don’t like being called racists, even those who disguise their hatred in their Christian beliefs.

Determining that someone is a bigot involves judgements about values and emotions that we cannot, and should not, make about another person, no matter how merited they may appear. Rebutting their arguments calmly and with respect will win more hearts and minds than the kind of name-calling vitriol with which they treat us. They are their own worst enemy – give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. Meanwhile if we remain rational and positive, we open up a space for sincere people amongst them to change. I should know – I was one of them.

“a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.”

If that is the case, I know of a number of bigots on these forums that are precisely that, specifically picking out such groups as Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Conservatives, or in fact anybody that doesn’t agree with gay rights.

It’s funny how a weapon isn’t half as much fun when it it is swung around and pointed directly at you.

I am not exercised by the issue personally, but there is a world of difference between someone who opposes gay marriage itself for intellectually or theologically valid reasons , and someone who opposes it with hate filled rhetoric and lies. The latter is driven by hatred of the people involved, not by rational argument.
The latter are bigots. Robert Mugabe is a bigot. So were Stalin, Franco, and, yes, Hitler (Godwin’s Law not withstanding). Not referring to these as bigots would be absurd, so why is Cleggy so scared to call a shovel a shovel?

Just because somebody is not for gay marriage it does not necessarily mean they are a bigot.
Not all of us have a rosy-tinted view of marriage; the only purpose I can see for it at all is that it provides a framework in which heterosexual couples can reproduce and rear children.

I just think old Nick Clegg is a bit of a fool if he cannot see that the only reason marriage is registered in the first place-I mean why should the state register a love affair (gay or heterosexual) is because marriage more often than not produces children by natural methods.
Everything about it is based upon a heterosexual model of relationships- consummation, adultery (a specific definition).
Civil partnerships-rightfully exist- because gay people can adopt. This may be a good thing (I personally it think better a caring gay people look after a child than it being neglected) or a bad thing, but, nevertheless they can adopt.
Civil partnerships obviously suit the legal requirements in the same way as marriage.

But the point is is that a person doesn’t have to dislike people to think that it serves no purpose for them (gay people).

“Bigot”, like “homophobe” and “racist”, is the coward’s way to slur all opposition and stymie and stifle all debate.

It’s a device of blinkered, PC-indoctrinated lefties who don’t want open debates on issues they hold dear because hearing the truth is anathema to them and they must confirm to the socially corrosive PC line at all costs.

Witness how those who voiced the truth about unfettered immigration impacting on unemployment and pressure on public services were smeared as racists.

What can be more bigoted than some of the more vociferous and sewer-mouthed commentators’ of these boards attitudes towards those practising their faith?

For all I object to the extremist elements of religion, at least all fair-minded religionists who believe in fairness and rights for all – yet are tarred by the same brush by unconscionable gay militants – have a faith and belief that stands for truth, integrity, honesty and respect.

You are wrong to assume that because people are gay or support gay rights that they cannot themselves be religious or practice their faith. Bigotry involves coming up with spurious arguments about “PC conspiracies”, rather than actually trying to relate to fellow human beings in a constructive and open way. Gay people don’t want church-goers to stop going to church – they just want them to stop saying hateful things and blocking civic legislation that will improve lives. We can all live together – but it takes one side to recognise that the other side has a simple right to exist.

Political Correctness is finding it unacceptable that someone who’s not white is referred to as a n1gger; that goods and services aren’t withheld from people purely because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality or their gender: do you really consider that a bad thing, Samuel B? I’d have thought even right-wing people (“righties”?) generally concede that such developments are positive.

Incidentally, how do you think labelling anyone who disagrees with you “PC-indocrinated lefties” comes across? Do you imagine it signals an openness to rational debate?

Political correctness can also be overbearing and restrictive.
As Samuel rightly says, it is a common left wing tactic to employ the guilt-trip scenario on anybody that makes criticism of a group.
Anybody that criticises immigration is therefore a racist,
Anybody that criticises feminism is therefore a sexist/misogynist,
Anybody that criticises LGBT rights is therefore a homphobe,
Anybody that criticises government is therefore a subversive,
Anybody that criticises the police are therefore anarchists…

You catch my drift.
People need to have the right to free speech without it implying that they are doing a disservice to others or society as a whole.
Remember it was Galileo that was imprisoned by the church for claiming the universe did not revolve around the Earth.

PC is also a corrosive blight on our society because it prevents people speaking truthfully and openly about issues that matter.

That’s why schools are now run down through lack of discipline:-

Why the NHS is on its knees due to care and compassion being superseded by a bureaucratic PC tick box culture:-

Why generations of families are now dependent on the welfare state:-

Why gangs of Muslim paedophiles were able to prey on white children with impunity:-

Why thousands of gay men have become HIV pos through lack of honest campaigns spelling out the consequences from which they would have even able to make informed decisions about the type of sex they have…

PC was well-intentioned when it began, but if you think it was worth it to see the fabric of our society stealthily deteriorate beyond belief then you are seriously deluded.

Get out of your gay bubble, off Grindr and open your eyes to the real world.

For you to deny the truth – which the above examples 100% are as chronicled by all UK media – shows you to be the kind of disciples of PC who are in abject denial of the damage and chaos your perverse doctrine has wrought, both here and in the US.

You are exactly the kind of close-minded PC “progressive” gays whom it would be impossible to have an intelligent, adult debate with as you would resort to the usual litany of bigoted insults to slur, intimidate and bully all opposition.

You are cut from the same PC indoctrinated cloth as that spineless, cowardly non-entity Nick (who?) Clegg, but alas no sign of any of the loud-mouthed reactionaries on these boards backtracking and time soon…

@Spanner..
…There is a point you are missing Spanner, or else you are willfully ignoring it and that is that none of your list above will induce guilt in someone who recognises the ignorance and fallibility of the statements. Only those who share the guilt will feel the guilt when these accusations are hurled at them…..

Oh really? So you have never walked through the ‘Nothing to Declare’ aisle of customs at an airport completely innocent, but still had that horrible feeling in the back of your mind that maybe you missed something?

I find being called a homophobe highly offensive, yet even as a gay man who stands up for LGBT rights, I get called it regularly, often by other LGBT people, simply because I don’t follow their political world view, or abide by the rules of their socialist clique.

I know I am in the right, but I still find the guilt-trip reactions both immature and unnecessary.

Nicolas Chinardet fails to point out that those who shout “bigot” at anyone who disagrees with them – or whose values they are intolerant of – are, by the true definition of the word, bigots!!

How on earth did you miss that one, Nick?

I, as a gay man, and like many other gay men, happen to think Civil Ceremonies serve our purpose very well and marriage is being pursued at all costs by gay extremists because there is nothing else left to fight for.

And when that is achieved where will their attentions turn next, I wonder?

For that reason I am not for gay marriage and of course that brands me as being a bigot.

Well I would sooner be true to my principles and called a bigot than be indoctrinated, persuaded or even bullied by hysterical, opinionated PC gays into believing that gay marriage is somehow the most important thing that matters in the whole wide world here and now when it quite simply is not.

I think there is a difference between proponents of marriage equality and some religious people.

The former are trying to expand a right to a wider group of people where the latter are trying to hold on to their privileges at the detriment of another group without rational reasons for it.

I think there is a difference between being opposed to something and actively trying to prevent people who want that thing to have it, using offensive language in the process. People who do that are the bigots.

You are opposed to marriage and therefore presumably won’t enter into one. That doesn’t mean you should stop others for entering one, should they want to.

Civil Partnerships do a pretty good job at the moment, you are right, but they are not exactly the same as marriage (and I am not just talking of the symbolic level). “Separate but equal” still isn’t equal as we were reminded by the US Civil Rights movement.

The people using the most offensive language from where I am standing, and appears always to be thus, are the ultra left wing radical gays who profess to speak for all of us.

How do you defend this faction of our society, Nicholas, who only last weekend took the almightyy pee out of Stevie Wonder’s blindness for the simple fact that they misconstrued something he said off the cuff as being homophobic?

How insulting is THAT?!!

As I keep saying, the reactionary politicised minority make life for the rest of us so much harder as we get tarred by associated with such hysterical extremism, and it is clear these rabble rousers are causing mainstream public patience threshold levels to disintegrate.

Actual ultra left wing radical gays tend to be against marriage in general and complain about the assimilationist middle and upper class gays who act like marriage is the only thing in the world and profess to speak for them. You’ve never met any, have you? You are just so far gone that you go around calling assimilationist moderates “radical leftists.”

I would also ask you, Nicholas, why on earth I would attempt to stop others “for entering (marriage), should they want to”, just as Rehan asks below that just because I consider gay marriage irrelevant “would you take or advocate action to scupper the current efforts to bring it in?”

Of course I jolly well wouldn’t, why would I?

It is not something I support, but you have the freedom to campaign for this cause.

Where I AM at odds with the pro-gay marriage lobby is how it has been adopted by all and sunder as the latest trendy cause, and how NOT to step into line and voice support for it is deemed politically incorrect bordering on heresy.

This lobby is attempting to steamroller gay marriage through without a debate, and many of the endless roll call of MPs and celebrities “coming out” for the cause are simply using gay marriage to posture and score PC points when they have never previously given a second thought to gay rights.

As we (still) live in a largely free society I would defend to the hilt your right to support any cause you believe in so long as it does not cause harm to others, but you miss my point entirely.

What I do NOT support is your presumption to brand as bigoted (or whatever the latest slur word is) anyone who does not share or support your belief as that is tantamount to riding roughshod over the rights of everyone else to hold their own beliefs, however unpalatable some of us may find them.

Well, I disagree with your standpoint on Civil partnerships, simply because they are not inclusive, and are ultimately divisive.

However, I would not call you a homophobe (or in the common lefty vernacular, ‘self-loathing’, whatever the hell that means) – You have a right to express your opinions and offer the reasons why you come to those conclusions, as much as I have of criticising you for the same; that is what debate and democracy is all about – everyone is going to have differences of opinion. The fact that some have to resort to insults, name-calling and ostracising others because the majority feel their views are unacceptable is the point where free speech ends and censorship and gagging begins.

The point being that I welcome you disagreeing with my stance on gay marriage because it would be boring if we agreed on everything!

And I would welcome a debate on the subject with someone as open, honest, individually expressed and who clearly knows what common sense is as opposed to trying to debate with a PC leftie who adheres parrot like to a Dishonest groupthink mind-already-made-up-and-not-for-budging consensus, which seems par for the course on PN forums.

Maybe he uses the term because the PC lefties are in turn, ‘jaded and predictable’ wheeling out the same old phrases and criticisms of others. If it isn’t calling somebody racist/homophobic or some other “ist” in order to make them appear as if they have broken some non-existent law, then it’s being a fascist/Tory/Thatcherite and failing that stirring up Godwin’s law and likening everybody to somebody that authorised the deaths of millions of people.

Well as I am constantly mistaken as a far right extremist on here in efforts to shut me up, I think the logical conclusisthmian only be that most commentators on this board must be left wing.

Why do you perceive it an insult to be labelled thus?

And said commentators are so brainwashed and sucked in by the stealthful drip drip spread into our society of PC that the tragic thing is you can’t even see it or recognise it in yourselves!

Remember when once you individually expressed yourself and your opinions were your own?

Whatever happened along the way to make you feel you had to jump into line and think like everybody else in order not to stand out and risk ostracisation?

In becoming a conformist your thoughts stopped being your own because, wittingly or otherwise, you chose to fall into line and shout down or deride those who still express individual thoughts and opinions.

Actually I would consider it well beneath my dignity to label you as a Rightie just because you espouse hysterical and frankly unbalanced views, I hope I’m above such childishness. I think you should try harder to achieve the logic in your conclusisthmians.

Grow up, Rehan, and stop using such cynical, tired old tactics to deflect intelligent debate.

Tip:- shake out of your cognitive dissonance and engage both sides of the brain – rational and intuitive – and allow yourself to think critically for a change instead of routinely parroting the same old song sheet nonsense.

Go on, you know a part of your mind wants to be free and individually expressed.

Poor SamuelB, I’m afraid it’s glaringly obvious that the one in need of growing up (not to mention singing – somewhat tunelessly in this instance – from the same songsheet) is you, so I suggest you follow your own advice. You never know, it might liberate you.

It is not bigotry to point out how messed up and bigoted someone’s worldview is.

You are saying we need to be tolerant of intolerance in order to not be hypocrites. That is complete bull.

Religious fundamentalists act like gay people are corrupting monsters, and if they were allowed to get married it would be the end of the world. If these people had their way, we would see anti-sodomy laws back on the books. There is no middle ground to be had there. There is no “agreeing to disagree” when it comes to whether one is a human deserving of rights.

These fundamentalist churches are preventing the churches that do believe in gay marriage fro practicing their sacraments, which goes to show that despite the anti-religion rhetoric that comes out in response to their crap, they are the ones who are against freedom of religion.

Also, there are a lot of more important things to fight for, which the actual “extremist gays” are doing. Marriage is mostly a middle class right wing goal.

Just as they tar as with the same brush, so we tar them one and all as being of the same mindset when in fact most people in most religions are moderate and liberal in their views, as indeed are most gay people.

Personally, I am not supporting gay marriage because it is a religious construct and also because the trend in mainstream society in recent years has been against the tradition of marriage in favour of cohabitation.

I just think it ironic that gay society should be clamouring for something so religiously traditional and untrendy that I can only assume it is as much to rub the church’s nose it it as it is a frantic clamour for the last bastion of equal rights.

And it DOES worry me what the radical progresses will turn their attentions to next in their zeal to make us the most predominantly represented and, i fear, eventually most over-exposed minority in society.

Sorry, but marriage is NOT a religious construct, it was around long before Christianity and all the other modern religions.

Additional to that, over 2/3rds of marriages in the UK today are performed in secular registry offices. All we want is parity with everybody else instead of being relegated to the “close, but no cigar” league.

But marriage has evolved into an inherently religious institution bound by the act of two people producing human life by, shall we say, old-fashioned means.

In word association, “marriage” is most closely linked to “church”:- the very institution the reactionary gays rail against most.

Gay partnerships are now recognised in civil law and their rights protected, gays can adopt…we can do everything we ever wanted to do.

By now demanding marriage we are stepping over a boundary that we erected in our adversity to the church:- blatant hypocrisy driven on by a perceived need to gloatingly sink religion and all its sacred, time-honoured traditions.

It is sickening to see all the religion-hating MPs and celebs jumping on the bandwagon to bulldoze their anti-religion agenda through, because that is the agenda many advocates of gay marriage are really behind.

For all its failings, religion provides a vocal point for people to hold on to faith and is the backbone of a stable society.

I don’t think our rights will become “pre-eminent”, any more than black, Jewish or disabled folk have pre-eminent rights (except in the eyes of BNP /EDL /UKIP). I do agree about us becoming “over-exposed”.
It always makes me smile when a rightie (as opposed to a leftie) complains about gay activists “shoving it in our faces / down our throats”. I see their point, though!

I happen to agree the Civil ceremonies are adequate, having recently attended my straight cousin’s CC to his girlfriend.
I am also proud to be a PC leftie, since the alternative is to be a Tory who is happy to see signs like “No Blacks No Dogs No Irish” re-appear on our B & B’s

Lord Carey, the Daily Mail and MPs like Peter Bone are clearly bigots. But I’d like to introduce a new description – ‘crap’. Lord Carey was a crap bishop, the Daily Mail is a crap newspaper, and Peter Bone is a crap MP. Better they focus on how they can improve themselves rather than bemoan they are unfairly treated.

What we need is a site to register the abuse LGBT people get every day and if we go over 100,000 then turn those signatures into the government question to be asked in parliment to stop illegal abuse by Politicians Exmp BONE HEAD. Is this possible.

There is a .gov site where you can set up a petition, can’t remember the address, if enough complain about Peter Bonehead, the issue will be covered in the media, possibly raised in Parliament. Not sure of the parameters of permitted subjects for such a petition. If it were phrased more broadly “we demand that MP’s refrain from attacking minorities as defined in the Equalities Act 2010), you may have more success

The Concise Oxford Dictionary
bigot n. obstinate and intolerant
adherent of a creed or view; hence ~ED2 a.,~RY (4, 5) n.[16th c. f. F; orig. unkn.]
It is evident that the vile preacher Carey doesn’t own a dictionary. A bigot he is and always has been, and is trying to confuse the matter by claiming not to be a bigot while all the while ably demonstrating that he and a lot of others belonging to his detestable creed, clearly are, to even the dimmest listener, Bigots…..

And what creed or view am i adhering to then Sam. I am firmly in the Zero religion camp and am being discriminated againsg daily by the religious bigots. What way am I discriminating against the preacher Carey and his cults followers.

Your creed is that people should have rights. Shame on you for obstinately insisting on such a thing. You should obviously compromise with the people who don’t think you should have rights, else your a hypocrite. -Sam logic

Those of your ilk are belittling, deriding and attempting to persecute people with deeply-held beliefs that stretch back centuries.

However unpalatable those beliefs we find them to be – and just as objectionable as they find our sexual practises to be – they have every right to express those beliefs just as we have every right to express our sexual freedom, so long as neither impeaches on the freedom or privacy of others.

The campaign of vilification being waged against the Christian church by the militant gay lobby is objectionable because it shows gays as a collective minority to be every bit as intolerant as our oppressors.

Fight fire with fire and you become indistinguishable from those you fight.

Where we were once universally oppressed, now gays are increasingly seen by many as an oppressive force cheered on by mainstream PC progressives who are intent on reshaping our world into one where all moral boundaries and sense of social responsibility are completely erased.

attempting to persecute people with deeply-held beliefs that stretch back centuries

I think you will agree that, logically, there is no argument that supports the theory that longevity of belief alone renders it beyond criticism: many people, till recently (fortunately), believed that women are inferior and incapable of professional success, and/or that non-white races were inferior by virtue of the fact that, erm ,they weren’t white – that in itself is not an argument for respecting their opinions, is it?

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that religious people aren’t entitled to have their own opinions. What offends many people is that some religious people are attempting to scupper progress in CIVIL law that doesn’t concern them in the first place.

“so long as neither impeaches on the freedom or privacy of others.” Ay, there’s the rub…religious reactionaries (too often only perceived in mosques, not churches) care nothing for the rights, freedoms or feelings of gay people. We are not people but things, sub-humans, and have been openly described as such.
But if we fight back we are PC lefties, hell-bent on turning the world gay (if only that were possible!)

This is descending into a bit of a playground argument. “You’re a bigot” “No, you’re a bigot, ‘cos you shout louder”.
I hate paedophiles and rapists. I am obstinate and intolerant in my hatred. Does that make me a “bigot”? If so I proudly accept the soubriquet.
Paddy is replying to attacks on us by an irrational mainstream faction. How is that “bigotry”.

I have to say the same before I even read Samuel’s post:
I see countless obstinate and intolerant people on these forums that are unwilling to budge so much as a nanometre in order to compromise with others, particularly, but not exclusively,the church.

Which preacher?
Like I said, there are many bigots on here concerned with many things, religion just being one facet.

Look at some Tory politicians offering to help, yet all they get is brickbats and abuse back from LGBT people on here unwilling to give so much as an inch of compromise. Is that not obstinate and intolerant?

Again, the only preacher I see around here are the likes of Paddy et al preaching to their followers that centuries of deeply-held and enshrined beliefs should be trampled all over and gay marriaIge rushed through at all costs.

No sign of an approach to the likes of Carey for an adult, intelligent debate on the subject, if only to demonstrate why those clamouring for full marriage rights deserve to be heard.

But instead of throwing the issue open for debate, the gay bigots brand all opposers as bigots to close down said debate.

Why is that?

I can only imagine the reason being that they are scared of being eloquently shot down by the preacher in the pulpit who may have some valid reasons for opposing full marriage rights, not least being that civil ceremonies more than adequately protect gay couples in the eyes of the law.

The only circumstance that should be able to change that in my opinion is if men were somehow overnight able to impregnate one another.

@Sammers..
..”not least being that civil ceremonies more than adequately protect gay couples in the eyes of the law.” …….that phrase right there is proof positive that you are talking out of your arse and you haven’t the foggiest of what you write. That and the fact Marriage Equality is a civil matter and has nothing whatever to do with the Abrahamic cults!

“Around the country, LGBT people are daily submitted to very real abuse, sometimes physical abuse. The complaint that offensive language is being used against opponents of equality would perhaps be taken more seriously if those people also rose against the offensive language so regularly thrown at LGBT people and if they refrained from employing such language themselves.”

I saw the above extract in the ‘ i ‘ newspaper yesterday and am glad to have found its source from such an excellent article.
Gay people could do worse than use this argument which even “normal” people (by their own definition in comments on the Daily Mail website) would have difficulty in countering.
Maybe the “Mrs. Bone” that her husband somewhat tediously uses in the House as his alter ego, the representative of true conservative values, is in fact the Daily Mail’s editor, Paul Dacre.
Either way, both, or perhaps all three, seem to be very cross dressers.

Clearly language is a powerful weapon which can be used to stir up all kinds of emotions on any side of any debate.

Indeed, could proponents of gay marriage not be called “bigots” due to the “obstinately [held] opinion” that gay people should be allowed to marry, and the apparent “intolerance” of the right of the religious community to disagree with that position?